A One-meter Robotic Telescope for Western Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1-m class telescopes are arguably the workhorses of modern astronomy and represent an excellent return of science for a relatively modest capital investment.Such instruments can be used in large-field survey work, high precision photometry as well as in providing HQP opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students.Currently there exists a dearth of such instruments in Canada and in the prairie provinces specifically.In this poster we argue for the development of a 1-m, robotic instrument to be situated in western Canada.The proposed instrument will address two central concerns.First, the instrument that we envision will be multi-purpose and through appropriate optical design will function as both a wide field survey instrument and a narrow field instrument capable of high precision photometry.A remote, robotic access telescope will also maximize on-sky efficiency and data output.Second, this telescope will serve as a prototype for a similar remote telescope for the high arctic.Lessons learned in this project should provide valuable insights into many of the issues expected for operation of a remote telescope in the arctic (extreme cold, problems of data transmission etc).We solicit comments and expressions of interest from other researchers who would benefit from such an instrument. GOALS
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it